FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
Designing a second miniaturized Sun, possible?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [7 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Neo
science forum beginner


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:19 pm    Post subject: Designing a second miniaturized Sun, possible? Reply with quote

Suppose we want to create a second tiny sun or hot fusion
source. What will it take to do that. If we can put enough hydrogen,
deuterium, tritium, etc trapped in magnetic field
or other containment in space and ignite it by fission. What should one
do so that there will be self sustained fusion reactions going on every
second.

In the sun, how many equivalent of average hydrogen bomb
exploding per second? 1 billion? It seems the sun exists
because there is gravity to hold it. So if we can hold
a tiny 1 mile size fusion core, then can we make a second
sun??

I'd asked the above because I've been wondering.

If the universe is designed for humans to exist. Why
does God or the Intelligent Source make uranium fissionable
and put us in the blink of annihilation. Without uranium
and fission. There is no way to create fusion as in
hydrogen bomb (or is there other way to ignite the
temperature for fusion to occur).

Maybe the negative entropy forces conspire to create
uranium and possibility of fusion so that someday in
the distant future, we can create our own sun should
our planet venture into deep space or for a human colony
in a far distant world or asteroid?

For those folks imagining superstrings, entanglements
and other theoretical concepts without any physical
proof. This is a way to get grounded in reality. Fusion
research is 'applied physics' versus the 'theoretical
physics' of the dreamers and crankpots.

sonny
Back to top
Sam Wormley
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:27 am    Post subject: Re: Designing a second miniaturized Sun, possible? Reply with quote

sonny wrote:
Quote:
Suppose we want to create a second tiny sun or hot fusion
source. What will it take to do that?

The Sun's primary energy source is the p-p chain whereby helium is
fused from hydrogen in the core of our sun. Density, pressure and
temperature profiles, solar neutrino (antineutrino) energies and total
radiated energy confirm the standard solar model.

Density, pressure an temperature profiles are measured by analysis
of the Sun's vibration modes, rates, etc.

The [once] Solar Neutrino Problem Has Been Closed
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 617 December 13, 2002 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James
Riordon

PHYSICS STORIES OF 2002. The top two physics stories for the past 12
months were the total accounting of neutrinos from the sun by the Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory (SNO), thus solving the solar neutrino problem (Update
586; www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html); and the formation
and detection of antihydrogen atoms at CERN (Updates 605 and 611,
www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/605-1.html and
www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/611-1.html). Other notable physics
developments for the year include stopping and storing light in a solid
(Update 571), the observation of phase-transition behavior in nuclei (572),
publication of some unsent letters by Niels Bohr to Werner Heisenberg (576),
interferometry with C-70 molecules (579), a dispute over "fusion" in
sonoluminescence (579, 599), most precise tests of special relativity (571,
590), sharper maps of the cosmic microwave background (591), "droplet" of
light (596), claims for element 118 retracted (597), verification of the
notion that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated on small
spacetime intervals (598), high precision measurements of CP violation in B
meson decays and in the g-2 factor of the muon (600), scandal at Lucent
(606), record high laboratory magnetic fields (614), polarization in the
cosmic microwave background detected (606), 2002 Nobel prize for physics
(608), noise can improve balance (612), and longest measured atomic lifetime
(616). All the above Update items can be retrieved from our archive at
www.aip.org/physnews/update.

REACTOR ANTI-NEUTRINO DISAPPEARANCE, measured by a detector in Japan,
supports the idea that neutrinos oscillate from one type to another and that
they possess mass. Nuclear reactors produce several things: heat,
electricity, spent fuel rods, and neutrinos. The neutrinos (or, to be more
exact, electron anti-neutrinos) are a result of fission reactions inside the
reactor core. But some of the electron antineutrinos, once they're underway
and moving through the Earth, manifest one of the weirdest phenomena in all
of physics, namely the ability to exist as a composite of several
sub-species. That is, what we call a neutrino is really several (perhaps
three) neutrinos in one. At any point along its trajectory the generic
neutrino might (if you were to capture it just then) appear as an electron
neutrino, but farther along it might look like a muon neutrino, in which
case it would elude detectors tuned to detect only electron nu's.
The Kamioka Liquid Scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector (KamLAND) sets out
to sample this odd mode of being. The apparatus, basically a huge reservoir
of optically-active liquid viewed by numerous phototubes, looks for
interactions in which an incoming nu strikes a proton, creating in their
stead a trackable neutron-positron pair. KamLAND resides in an underground
lab beneath Toyama, Japan. It is a sort of telescope peering not at
galaxies in the sky; instead it stares through a block of terrestrial crust
looking for the neutrino warmth cast off by a constellation of 69 reactors
in Japan and Korea.

Taking into account the laws of physics governing the reactions in the
reactor cores, the known power ratings for the reactors, their aggregate
reactor-detector distances, and the duration of the experiment (145 days),
one would expect seeing 86 true events, whereas the actual number was 54.
The researchers conclude that the disappearance of events is due to neutrino
oscillation.

This result is not merely a confirmation of oscillation research carried
out with solar nu's at such detectors as Super Kamiokande in Japan and the
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada (see Update 586,
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html). For one thing
KamLAND studies anti-neutrinos rather than neutrinos. Furthermore, the
production of neutrinos in a reactor is much closer at hand and better
understood than is the case for the sun. The KamLAND finding also serves to
narrow the theoretical explanation of the neutrino's split personality.
(Eguchi et al., paper submitted to Physical Review Letters, text and
background information at:
http://hep.stanford.edu/neutrino/KamLAND/KamLAND.html)


The "solar neutrino problem" was solve a few years ago:
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/608-1.html

Note these papers by John N. Bahcall, Sarbani Basu, M. H. Pinsonneault:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9805135
http://pdg.lbl.gov/1998/solarnu_s005313.pdf
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/24/3/24-3-bahcall.pdf

Also read:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Popular/JohnRayhistory/johnrayhistory.html
http://www.fynu.ucl.ac.be/librairie/theses/gustaaf.brooijmans/node26.html
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/kirsten/gallex/detector.htm


Neutrino producing reactions adapted [by Lang]
from Bahcall (1989). The termination percentage is a fraction of terminations
of the proton-proton (pp) chain, 4p --> alpha + 2e+ + 2v_e, in which each
reaction occurs. Since in essentially all terminations at least one pp neutrino
is produced and in a few terminations one pp and one pep neutrino are created,
the total of pp and pep terminations exceeds 100%

Name Reaction % Termination Neutrino Energy, q
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pp p + p --> H² + e+ + v_e 100 q < 0.420 MeV
pep p + e- + p --> H² + v_e 0.4 q = 1.442 MeV
hep He³ + p --> He4 + v_e 0.00002 q < 18.773 MeV
Be7 Be7 + e- --> Li7 + v_e 15 q = 0.862 MeV 89.7%
q = 0.384 MeV 10.3%
B8 B8 --> Be7 + e+ + v_e 0.02 q < 15 MeV


Calculated Solar neutrino fluxes at the Earth's Surface
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pp 6.0 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
pep 0.014 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
hep 8 x 10^3 cm^-2 s^-1
Be7 0.47 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
B8 5.8 x 10^6 cm^-2 s^-1


Other relevant papers by John N. Bahcall, Sarbani Basu, M. H. Pinsonneault:
Quote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9805135
http://pdg.lbl.gov/1998/solarnu_s005313.pdf

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/24/3/24-3-bahcall.pdf

And here is something fun you can do:
http://www.physics.mun.ca/~jjerrett/protonproton/pp.html

More fun references:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/solarpp.html
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,63188+1+61627,00.html
> http://www.eps.org/aps/meet/APR00/baps/abs/S5690002.html
Back to top
Uncle Al
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1226

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Designing a second miniaturized Sun, possible? Reply with quote

sonny wrote:
Quote:

Suppose we want to create a second tiny sun or hot fusion
source.

ITER - piece of s**t. Thermonuclear warhead - efficient but messy.

Quote:
What will it take to do that. If we can put enough hydrogen,
deuterium, tritium, etc trapped in magnetic field
or other containment in space and ignite it by fission. What should one
do so that there will be self sustained fusion reactions going on every
second.

Random drool.

Quote:
In the sun, how many equivalent of average hydrogen bomb
exploding per second? 1 billion? It seems the sun exists
because there is gravity to hold it. So if we can hold
a tiny 1 mile size fusion core, then can we make a second
sun??

Look up the numbers, numbnuts. Surface/volume ratio, numbnuts. Small
stuff doesn't stay warm.

Quote:
I'd asked the above because I've been wondering.

We'd hate to have you ask it because you weren't. Is there anybody
left who can actually come forth with a coherent line of thought?

Quote:
If the universe is designed for humans to exist.
[snip crap]


"Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
Do you have three grandfathers?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Designing a second miniaturized Sun, possible? Reply with quote

Look up the numbers, numbnuts. Surface/volume ratio, numbnuts.

**********

How do YOU know they're numb, eh? By feel????

I love you.
Back to top
lysdexia
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 1207

PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:38 am    Post subject: Re: Designing a second miniaturized Sun, possible? Reply with quote

Uncle Al wrote:
Quote:
In the sun, how many equivalent of average hydrogen bomb
exploding per second? 1 billion? It seems the sun exists
because there is gravity to hold it. So if we can hold
a tiny 1 mile size fusion core, then can we make a second
sun??

Look up the numbers, numbnuts. Surface/volume ratio, numbnuts. Small
stuff doesn't stay warm.

So then all black holes must kill themselves as they're made and big
stars live forever, dumbass?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/1fd949869b9d4d2b/ea0206c656a58bb7#ea0206c656a58bb7
http://www.advancedphysics.org/viewthread.php?tid=2201#pid14024

Someone somewhere calculated the lifetime of a C-O chemical star with
the sun's mass to be a few thousand years. Putting an earthward
reflector on it and turning down the heat brought it into the billions,
but I could see a trillion years.

-Aut
Back to top
Charles Cagle
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 2:26 am    Post subject: Re: Designing a second miniaturized Sun, possible? Reply with quote

On 8/29/05 18:19, in article
1125364742.165198.188780@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "sonny"
<sunfuel2@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Suppose we want to create a second tiny sun or hot fusion
source. What will it take to do that. If we can put enough hydrogen,
deuterium, tritium, etc trapped in magnetic field
or other containment in space and ignite it by fission. What should one
do so that there will be self sustained fusion reactions going on every
second.

In the sun, how many equivalent of average hydrogen bomb
exploding per second? 1 billion? It seems the sun exists
because there is gravity to hold it. So if we can hold
a tiny 1 mile size fusion core, then can we make a second
sun??

I'd asked the above because I've been wondering.

If the universe is designed for humans to exist. Why
does God or the Intelligent Source make uranium fissionable
and put us in the blink of annihilation. Without uranium
and fission. There is no way to create fusion as in
hydrogen bomb (or is there other way to ignite the
temperature for fusion to occur).

Maybe the negative entropy forces conspire to create
uranium and possibility of fusion so that someday in
the distant future, we can create our own sun should
our planet venture into deep space or for a human colony
in a far distant world or asteroid?

For those folks imagining superstrings, entanglements
and other theoretical concepts without any physical
proof. This is a way to get grounded in reality. Fusion
research is 'applied physics' versus the 'theoretical
physics' of the dreamers and crankpots.

sonny



Well, one must realize that there's a paradigm to which you are paying
homage and that is that fusion reactions occur because of energetic
collisions between fusion fuel nuclei.

According to Glasstone and Lovberg in Chapter 2 of the report "Controlled
Thermonuclear Reactions" prepared under the auspices of the AEC in 1960
"...experiments made with accelerated nuclei have shown that nuclear
reactions can take place at detectable rates even when the energies are
considerably below those corresponding to the top of the Coulomb barrier. In
other words, there is no threshold energy, determined by the maximum
electrostatic repulsion of the interacting nuclei, below which the fusion
reaction will not occur. Such behavior, which cannot be explained in terms
of classical mechanics, can be interpreted by means of wave mechanics. It
can be shown that there is a certain probability that two nuclei will
combine even though they do not have sufficient energy to surmount the
Coulomb barrier. This effect is commonly referred to as 'barrier
penetration'."

The idea that raising the temperature of a confined plasma is the route to a
successful design for a nuclear fusion reactor is the biggest bunch of
nonsense and has cost the U.S. government more money following a wrong
principle in physics than anything else (at least $50 billion down the drain
trying to build a working fusion reactor and at least another $100 billion
in weapons research learning to tweak fusion weapons (by underground weapons
tests) which could have been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that
amount). If you truly want to know how nuclear fusion works then you need to
learn the real rules for charged particle interactions.


So, if high temperatures and pressures are not needed to generate fusion
reactions between interacting nuclei how do stars actually operate? To find
the answer to this question you need to take Step One and learn the basics
behind charged particle interactions which has never been taught in any
university nor academic institution in modern history.


Bear with me please, while I lay out my reasoning. When we
write Maxwellıs equations in terms of E and H only then
we have:
1) Del X H = permittivity E/t
2) Del X E = -permeability H/t
3) Del dot E = 0
4) Del dot H = 0

Equation 1) as applied to a charged particle suggests that if that charged
particle should have motion so that there would be a variation in E that
then a magnetic field characterized mathematically as a vector field with
rotation (Del X H) should arise around the translational axis of that
motion. Considering the principle that all motion is relative one must
reflect that a charged particle cannot move with respect to itself and hence
in the rest frame of such particle this predicted vector field could not
exist. Instead, such a field could only exist in the rest frame of the
particle or observer which had relative motion with respect to the particle.
So, if we had two protons, A and B, which had relative motion, then
emanating from Bıs location but not local to B (not existing in Bıs rest
frame) would be a vector field as predicted by equation 1) above. Such a
vector field would lie on parallel planes perpendicular to the translational
axis of relative motion between A and B. Likewise, because of the relative
motion of the two particles, then emanating from Aıs location, but not local
to A, would also arise a vector field which also would lie on parallel
planes perpendicular to the translational axis of relative motion between A
and B.

The vector field emanating from Aıs location would exist in Bıs rest frame
(momentum space) and the vector field emanating from Bıs location would
exist in Aıs rest frame (momentum space). Now, for two same charged
particles that do not have relative motion with respect to each other one
might presume that there would be an electrostatic repulsion between them.
But as I pointed out above, thereıs actually no experimental data that has
shown this to be the case. Bear in mind that Iım not suggesting that two
same charged particles that have relative motion will not repel one another
but only that elementary charged particles that donıt have relative motion
will not and, in fact, will appear to be attractively interactive. After
all, this thesis is the whole point or is produced to establish that point.
So, letıs consider two protons, A and B, that are overlapping in momentum
space and that are separated by distance d. In the rest frame of third
particle C which has motion with respect to A and B will arise a pair of
vector fields: (Del X H)AC and (Del X H)BC where AC and BC are subscripts to
indicate the vector fields generated by the relative motion of A with
respect to C and B with respect to C, respectively. This pair of vector
fields will emanate from A and B respectively but will be non-local to both
A and B because neither A nor B can move with respect to themselves (as
noted above). What Iım proposing here is that for the perpendicular
component of the relative velocity of C with respect to a plane coincident
with a straight line joining A and B that the two vector fields (Del X H)AC
and (Del X H)BC will produce magnetic H loops (vector fields) that will
interact in such a manner as to produce what appears to be an attractive
interaction between A and B. Those two vector fields will have the same
direction of rotation on that plane and hence at the point of intersection
the direction of the H flux of (Del X H)AC will be anti-parallel to the
direction of the H flux of (Del X H)BC. Now, Iım suggesting that at from the
point of intersection outward toward each particle is created a null motion
gradient. Another axiom-like reference that we can point to are the laws of
thermodynamics of which one part we can translate to a vernacular which is:
³All matter and energy moves so as to obtain to the lowest energy state
possible.² Seeing this universal axiom applied together with the axiom of
the relative motion of quanta and with one of Maxwellıs equations the end
result is that the two particles will begin to Œfallı and accelerate toward
the intersection point of the two vector fields. Consider that there are
very many other particles in the universe which will have relative motion
with respect to A and B and that for any component of velocity that each and
every other particle may have that is perpendicular to a plane coincident
with the line A-B that emerging from the locations of A and B will be
generated such vector fields that will also produce what would appear to be
an interaction between A and B. The particles appear to be accelerating
toward each other but, in fact, are accelerating in the null gradient field
towards the point of intersection of the vector fields. Every one of those
vector fields will be non-local to the particles A and B and non-local to
each other so that the total force calculated will be related to the sum of
the individual forces produced in each frame and each individual force will
be related to the magnitude of the component of the relative motion
(velocity) of each and every other particle in the universe that is normal
to a plane containing A and B because it is by that velocity that is
determined the magnitude of E/t in each and every case. Now for the case
of two oppositely charged particles, A and B, that are overlapping in the
same momentum space then those two vector fields will have the opposite
direction of rotation on that plane and hence at the point of intersection
the direction of the H flux of (Del X H)AC will be parallel to the direction
of the H flux of (Del X H)BC. In this case you have just the opposite of a
null point but instead you have a point where the flux density is high and
as such is representative of a hill, energy-wise, so that the particles
appear to repel one another but, in fact, they are both simultaneously
moving to a lower energy state by moving away from the Œhillı. Quod Erat
Demonstrandum. But, in case you have trouble visualizing the model you can
also consider that any two same charged particles that are at rest with
respect to one another (overlapping in momentum space) will appear to have
parallel velocities with respect to any third particle in the universe that
has motion with respect to them. A charged particle that is in motion is a
Œquantum current elementı. Two same charged particles that are overlapping
in momentum space are equivalent to a pair of parallel current elements.
Laboratory experiments with parallel current carrying wires find an
attractive interaction between the wires. Laboratory experiments with
anti-parallel currents (pointing in exact opposite directions) in parallel
wires demonstrate a repulsion between the two wires. Two oppositely charged
particles overlapping in the same momentum space will have parallel
trajectories but will be anti-parallel current elements. Their flux density
vector will point in the same direction at the point of intersection and
they will appear to repulsively interact. But the interesting thing here is
that as soon as they depart from the same momentum space and have relative
motion then they have anti-parallel velocities but are parallel current
elements. So, the result is that they appear to be attractively interactive
and will fall towards the same null point. Since that acceleration toward
the same null point is mediated by the non-local vector fields then they
soon come to a point where they are overlapping in the same momentum space
and that results in what once again appears to be a repulsive interaction.
Thus a proton and an electron do not bind together because they are in a
continuous doh-se-doh dance where they are alternately falling towards the
same null point and then falling away from the same high energy hill.
Contrary to popular stellar dynamics theories that posit PP (proton-proton)
interactions as the main core energy source for our sun and many other
stars, two protons will not Œstick togetherı unless there is a third
component to their relationship, something that will continue to keep them
overlapping in the same momentum space. That third component is the neutron.
The neutron is a source of a monolithic gravitational Œfieldı that is a time
gradient field. A time gradient field is a null motion gradient field and
particles in the near region, from the viewpoint of all non-near region
particles, will appear to begin to overlap in the same momentum space. Thus,
a neutron, because it produces this null motion gradient field produces the
necessary conditions to keep the protons bound closely to it. If two nearby
particles of the same charge are in the same rest frame (overlapping in
momentum space) and if they both entered that momentum space at the same
time then the maximum time that will pass before they can interact is
Tmax=Dp/2c but if they did not come into the same momentum space at the same
instant then Tmax=(Dp-c(t2-t1))/2c where Dp is the interparticle distance,
t1 is the time that the first particle enters a given momentum space and t2
is time that the second particle enters that same momentum space and t2t1,
c(t2-t1)Dp, and c is the speed of light. If the two particles obtain to a
common momentum space at the same instant so that t2=t1 then Tmax=Dp/2c. If
c(t2-t1)=Dp then Tmax=0 and the particles will immediately begin to
interact. For example, two particles that obtain to a common momentum space
at the same instant in time that are on the order of 10 nuclear diameters
apart (5e-14 meters) will begin to interact in a maximum time of 8.337e-23
seconds. This force, which if between nuclei, will appear to be evidence of
a strongly attractively interactive force, is a short time scale force,
which means that particles that could interact will have to be on the order
of a mean free path distance apart from one another and that Tmax has to be
on the order of the mean free path flight time. Particles for which Dp> the
mean free path will likely be perturbed before the reaction can begin. So,
this force, that is normally interpreted as the nuclear strong force, is not
so much a short distance scale or short range force but rather a short time
scale availability force and one can see that it is entirely electromagnetic
in character. Also, this force is the sum of the forces generated by the
number of particles that have motion with respect to A and B so it is a very
strong force as well as being a short time scale availability force. In
fact, we can see that it really isnıt a Œforceı at all in the traditional
sense because of the non-locality with respect to the vector fields that
emerge as a function of the relative motion of a great number of distant
particles with respect to A and B. Iused the terms Œlocalı and Œnon-localı
in a manner that may be a little nonstandard so please let me explain how I
mean them. Definition: non-local; adjective, A good definition here is a
quote from Nick Herbertıs, Quantum Reality, p. 214, Anchor paperback: ³A
non-local interaction is, in short, unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate.²
Non-local interactions do not diminish with distance, ³They are as potent at
a million miles as at a millimeter.² Non-local interactions are not delayed
in time. ³Non-local influences act instantaneously.² Non-local interactions
are unmediated. ³...no amount of interposed matter can shield this
interaction.² He tells us non-local interactions are not limited to light
speed. Consider two particles A and B that suddenly have relative motion
between them. As stated earlier a vector field will emanate from Bıs
location due to Aıs relative motion. Now it doesnıt matter how far away B is
from A when they first achieve relative motion. They can be light years
apart but as soon as they begin to have relative motion A causes a field to
emanate from Bıs location and B causes a field to emanate from Aıs location.
The field emanating from Aıs location is non-locally generated per Herbertıs
description but it also happens to an unobservable with respect to Aıs
vantage point or rest frame simply because A cannot move with respect to
itself and hence vary its electric field with respect to itself. So, in this
sense it is also not present in Aıs frame and hence in this context is also
not local to A. In the same context it is local to B because it is in Bıs
rest frame even though it will take an amount of time that is equal to the
distance between A and B divided by the speed of light for it to physically
be present at Bıs location. Definition: Overlapping in momentum space or
occupying common momentum space -> Two particles that have a common de
Broglie wavelength [calculated from a center of momentum frame] that is
equal to or greater than the interparticle distance can be said to be
overlapping in momentum space or occupying a common momentum space. This is
just a direct manner that one may use to quantify what it means for two
particles to be Œat restıwith respect to one another without requiring that
there be no motion at all. My goal was to show that using just Maxwellıs
equations and the principle that all motion is relative that one can show
that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space
will, in fact, act opposite to the expectations of Coulombıs Law. This means
that if two like charged particles are overlapping in momentum space then
theyıll be strongly attractively interactive and if two unlike charged
particles are overlapping in momentum space then they will be repulsively
interactive.
-- Peace to the followers of Jesus Christ -

For email remove the underscores in my email.

Charles Cagle
Back to top
Charles Cagle
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 2:58 am    Post subject: Re: Designing a second miniaturized Sun, possible? Reply with quote

On 8/30/05 9:03, in article 43148354.132E4D32@hate.spam.net, "Uncle Al"
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:

Quote:
sonny wrote:

Suppose we want to create a second tiny sun or hot fusion
source.

ITER - piece of s**t. Thermonuclear warhead - efficient but messy.

What will it take to do that. If we can put enough hydrogen,
deuterium, tritium, etc trapped in magnetic field
or other containment in space and ignite it by fission. What should one
do so that there will be self sustained fusion reactions going on every
second.

Random drool.

In the sun, how many equivalent of average hydrogen bomb
exploding per second? 1 billion? It seems the sun exists
because there is gravity to hold it. So if we can hold
a tiny 1 mile size fusion core, then can we make a second
sun??

Look up the numbers, numbnuts. Surface/volume ratio, numbnuts. Small
stuff doesn't stay warm.

I'd asked the above because I've been wondering.

We'd hate to have you ask it because you weren't. Is there anybody
left who can actually come forth with a coherent line of thought?

If the universe is designed for humans to exist.
[snip crap]

"Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
Do you have three grandfathers?

Uncle Al...when will the day come when you show forth a little grace? How
about that for a coherent line of thought? And this also: "Do you always
have to be so mean spirited to people?" ? And do you suppose that by
pasting and cutting some Yiddish that you are somehow intellectually
superior to those who know no Yiddish? When are you going to learn to
forgive people for the shortcomings that you are so quick to see in people?

You know not a single person but your own self and you know not yourself
with clarity. Every person that you are aware of you have fashioned in
your mind a mental construct of and have endowed such constructs with
pernicious properties because of your hatred for them. Somehow all one
needs to do is to post an inquiry and that brings forth your hatred. And
you continue to endow most of mankind with stupidity or prolixity or some
other to you unacceptable property of intellect. The more you obsess on
"the ignorant masses" that you hate so much the more do you endow those
mental constructs of them with undesirable properties. Someday perhaps
you'll realize that because these mental constructs are all part of your own
mind that all along you were endowing yourself with those properties and the
irony is that you become worse than those you hate. Learn to forgive
whoever it was that abused you and get free of the hell in which you
presently dwell.



-- Peace to the followers of Jesus Christ -

For email remove the underscores in my email.

Charles Cagle
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [7 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:56 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Need advice for designing chem. robots george_D Chem 2 Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:55 pm
No new posts Need help for designing chem. robots george_D Analytical 7 Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:07 am
No new posts Need help designing bidirectional solenoid ??? jalbers@bsu.edu Electromagnetics 0 Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:39 pm
No new posts designing SNOWYMAN Mechanics 3 Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:40 pm
No new posts designing code to have uniform distribution... kiki Math 3 Tue May 31, 2005 12:03 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0739s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0432s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]